A Filtering Switch Made by an Improved Coupled Microstrip Line
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
It is claimed that a new filtering switch is proposed. It is established based on an optimized coupled microstrip line. I have some comments and they should be addressed.
1) In line 85, how the ABCD matrix of the parallel-coupled network is obtained? Please add more details or add suitable reference/references (Also, Equation 7).
2) The authors should define all parameters used in the manuscript such Zoe1, Zoo1, \theta and etc (e.g., see equations 1 and 2).
3) For any coupled lines, the coupling factor (or coupling coefficient K2) may be low or high. The authors should clarify that the proposed procedure is valid for both low coupling factor or high coupling factor? What will happen if the coupling factor is changed?
4) The authors should report stopband BW, Passband selectivity, and off-state suppression (OSS) value at center frequency and OSS BW. Also, it is recommended to add these parameters in Table 1 for comparison.
5) All frequency components of a signal are delayed when they pass through a structure. Group delay is the time delay of the signal through the device under test as a function of frequency. Group delay is a measurement of the time taken by the modulated signal to get through the system. For an ideal structure, the phase will be linear and the group delay would be constant. However, in the real world group delay distortions occur, as signals at different frequencies take different amounts of time to pass through the system. Could the authors report the phase of S11 and S21 or group delay?
6) Please highlight the advantages and drawbacks of the proposed structure. Are there any drawbacks for that?
7) In the first paragraph of page 8: The simulated and measured parameters of the filtered changes are proven in Fig 7 not Fig 6. Please correct it.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers:
I have responded to each of the questions as you requested, and have revised the article, as detailed in the attached response.
Best regards
Xiaokang Chen
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Minor revision is recommended to this submission. Specific comments are given below.
· Attempt seems to be good and manuscript was written well
· Production cost of filtering switch may be mentioned
· The mechanisms behind the higher efficiency of coupled microstrip line for manufacturing filtering switch may be explained clearly
· Pros and cons of fabrication of this prototype may be indicated
· All the abbreviations should be expanded first time, it will be helpful for the readers for easy understanding. Eg. RF system
· The knowledge gap should be clearly stated.
· References should be arranged as per the journal format.
These corrections would improve the content of the manuscript
Author Response
Dear Reviewers:
I have responded to each of the questions as you requested, and have revised the article, as detailed in the attached response.
Best regards
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thanks the authors for answers and updates. The quality of the manuscript is improved. The manuscript is now suitable for publication. However, it is recommended to add some expression about the future works (optional).
Author Response
Dear Reviewers:
We have revised the article as you requested and have a future planned solution for the prototype defects. Detailed response is attached
Best regards
Xiaokang Chen
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
